fuse replacement markings

[Peter L. Tarver]

The following query relates to IEC60950:2000 and -1, §1.7.6.

Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for IEC60950:2000
or -1, where operator accessible fuse replacement marking
requirements may be waived, based on the fuse not being
required for safety reasons (did not open during any test
under any conditions of test) and where of the fuse may be
replaced by an operator/user?

I have checked the CB Scheme web site and found no CTL
Decisions related to §1.7.6.  I ask because I've seen
references to CTL Decisions on this list that were not
posted on that web site.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: fuse replacement markings

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in <4a.21adfde8.2c88f
a...@aol.com>) about 'fuse replacement markings' on Thu, 4 Sep 2003:

>I think that you and I have gone through the merits and demerits of
>  the way IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 cover fuse markings already in 
>this forum, let's not go over old ground again.

It was not I who re-opened the subject but Peter Tarver. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

Re: fuse replacement markings

[richhug...@aol.com]

John,

I think that you and I have gone through the merits and demerits of  the way
IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 cover fuse markings already in this forum, let's not
go over old ground again.

Richard

Re: Compliance test configuration

[GARY MCINTURFF]

   Just a thought.
   Doubling the data lines from 32 to 64 doesn't necessarily mean that they
are being clocked any faster. I would assume they increase the word size, put
it on the buss  lines in parallel fashion and then clock that data down the
line at the same time, and at the same buss rate as before. It might be more
appropriate to consider these as additional I/O lines and follow those
guidelines - adding until less than a 2 dB increase. Considering that these
are data lines and not clock signals it seems unlikely that the data patterns
would match such that you would get coherent addition of the signals unless
you synchronize the data patterns which has, in my opinion little or nothing
to do with typical or real operation of the equipment.
If its easy to get the system with the 64 bit bus, you're way ahead to do
that because there is no question about it, and you address all of the
variables. If not document it in your test along with the rational but be
prepared to defend it if necessary, to then find a unit to test, and then
worry about field retrofit that test failed.
Engineering risk management. Note, I didn't say management risk management
I'm fairly certain I know that answer.
Gary

   
 
 
- Original Message - 

From: Rachid Sehb   
To: 'ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com' ; Rachid Sehb   
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: Compliance test configuration

Ajmani,
 
Yes that is correct, having the unit transmitting information at the highest
data rate is the goal.
 

 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer   <  
mailto:rs...@rheintech.com> 

The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and
confidential, and is intended only for use of the addressee. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it.


From: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:51 PM
To: Rachid Sehb
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Compliance test configuration



Hello Rachid, 

Thank you very much for your reply.  In this case, the EUT is the disk drive,
which is connected to SCSI Adapter through the SCSI interface.  The 64-bit
interface is strictly between the PC and the SCSI Adapter, and does not affect
the transfer rate between Adapter and the disk drive.  The only benefit of
using 64-bit interface is to sustain the data rate when connected to a large
number of disk drives.  I would assume that as long as I am transferring data
between Adapter and the disk drive at the maximum transfer rate, the type of
interface between Adapter and PC (both of which are already agency approved)
should not matter.

Regards, Ravinder
Server PCB and Flex Development
Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

Email: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com








Rachid Sehb  


09/03/2003 05:34 PM 



To:"'ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com'"  
cc: 
From:Rachid Sehb  
Subject:RE: Compliance test configuration 





Hello Ajmani, 
  
In most cases the standard would like the worst case to be tested, so my
advice would be to test the 64 bits. 
  
  

 

Rachid Sehb   EMC engineer   <  
mailto:rs...@rheintech.com> 


Rhein Tech Laboratories, Inc. <  
http://www.rheintech.com> 


Electro Magnetic Engineering and Testing,  Wireless Testing, Electrical Safety
Testing,  PCB and Hardware Design Engineering 


360 Herndon Parkway, Suite 1400, Herndon, VA 20170 


Tel: 703-689-0368 x127 ; Fax: 703-689-2056 


The information contained in this electronic mail message is privileged and
confidential, and is intended only for use of the addressee. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
disclosing it. 



From: ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com [mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:08 PM
To: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org'
Subject: Compliance test configuration


Hi EMC Experts, 


I want to test a U320 SCSI disk drive for agency compliance.  All the U320
SCSI Host Bus Adapters require 64-bit PCI slot, although they will also work
in the 32-bit slot. 


My question is do I have to use a PC with 64-bit PCI bus for my testing (these
PCs are hard to come by), or can I use a PC with 32-bit PCI bus. 


I will appreciate your advice in helping me decide this.

Re: fuse replacement markings

[John Woodgate]

I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver 
wrote (in )
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Thu, 4 Sep 2003:
>Since I am trying to comply with an end product standard's requirements, 
>component standards' marking requirements would not apply to end-product 
>markings, unless explicitly stated in the end-product standard.
>
>It is reasonable to expect that plain language markings (using 
>appropriate national languages) communicate at least as well as 
>abbreviated markings. 

Yes, but remember that it implies marking in numerous languages if you
market the product world-wide. English is not even enough for Canada. I
don't think it's practicable.

> It seems rational that the 60065 accepted 
>abbreviation taken from 60127 should be optional, rather than a 
>prescriptive requirement, and that plain language markings should be 
>acceptable in lieu of an abbreviation.

See above.
>
>Rather than vague, 60950-1 is flexible.

But it's flexible enough to leave you perplexed as to exactly what
marking is required. Also, it leaves a decision as to whether the
marking is adequate to test-houses, which WILL produce inconsistent
decisions. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk 
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to 
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: fuse replacement markings

[Peter L. Tarver]

Richard -

I recall using that before, to good effect.  I'd forgotten
about it.  Thank you for the reminder.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com


From: Richard Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:15 PM


Peter,

For me, the question is clearly answered by looking at
clause 1.3.1, which states that "The requirements detailed
in this standard shall be applied only if safety is
involved".


All the best,

Richard Hughes



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: fuse replacement markings

[Peter L. Tarver]

John -

Since I am trying to comply with an end product standard's
requirements, component standards' marking requirements
would not apply to end-product markings, unless explicitly
stated in the end-product standard.

It is reasonable to expect that plain language markings
(using appropriate national languages) communicate at least
as well as abbreviated markings.  It seems rational that the
60065 accepted abbreviation taken from 60127 should be
optional, rather than a prescriptive requirement, and that
plain language markings should be acceptable in lieu of an
abbreviation.

Rather than vague, 60950-1 is flexible.


Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
2000 Ringwood Ave.
San Jose, CA 95131-1749
V: 408-904-2081
F: 408-904-2095
M: 408-234-3529
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com

> From: John Woodgate
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:10 PM
>
> Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so,
> the code that I posted
> is what is required. I am surprised that clause
> 1.7.6 is so vague, when
> the corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very
> explicit that the code
> specified in IEC 60127 shall be used.
> --
> Regards, John Woodgate



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

HP 8566B and QP detector

[lfresea...@aol.com]

Hi all,

As you may know, I support the Schaffner Complaince 3 software here in the
USA. I have a new driver written for a HP 8566B and QP adaptor, but I have no
instrument to test it on.

Is there anyone within 200 miles of Rockford IL that has one and would be
prepared to rent it for a few days.

Note, from an RF view, calibration is unnecessary, all I need is GP-IB
functionality.

Thanks,

Derek.

RE: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator

[Gordon,Ian]

Nafti
I had the same issue within the last few weeks - and got a battery pack made
by a Cell Pack Solutions http://www.cellpacksolutions.com in the UK. They
only charged (no pun intended) about a quarter of the price Schaffner
wanted, but they did have some difficulty getting the cells which are half
AA size.
They may do international sales.

Ian Gordon

> -Original Message-
> From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2003 21:48
> To: 'emc-pstc'
> Subject: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, we have a need for a second battery pack for Schaffner 
> NSG 435 ESD
> simulator.
> 
> Other than Schaffner (which is a bit pricey), is there anyone 
> else out there
> who makes these battery packs?
 

_
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator

[ari.honk...@nokia.com]

Hi,
it's easy to dismantle the pack and replace the cells, they are of standard
size. Some soldering is needed.
Ari
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@catena.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:48 PM
> To: 'emc-pstc'
> Subject: Battery pack for Schaffner NSG 435 ESD simulator
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, we have a need for a second battery pack for Schaffner 
> NSG 435 ESD
> simulator.
> 
> Other than Schaffner (which is a bit pricey), is there anyone 
> else out there
> who makes these battery packs?
> 
> Regards,
> Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com 
 )
307 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8
613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445
E-mail: nsh...@catena.com  


This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc



This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Ron Pickard:  emc-p...@hypercom.com
 Dave Heald:   emc_p...@symbol.com

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc